Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Ive heard a bunch of stories about how people get a summer associate position and then go soft 2L/3L year. I'm taking some classes with some pretty well known profs at my school, and I get the sense that the gunners/high achievers disproportionately self-selected into these classes. I'm having a mild freak out that the competition is going to be harder than 1L year which is not exactly what my gpa needs right now. I keep telling myself though that a lot of these kids probably have jobs and aren't going to be bringing their A game as much.

So what's the verdict? Does the competition get harder 2L year? Easier? The same?

Gibson Dunn is the only firm I know of who carefully scrutinizes 2L and 3L courses. They keep lists of courses with inflated average GPAs from the school they routinely hire from, and will actually adjust your school's GPA downward for easy courses and upward for difficult or especially relevant courses.

Everybody knows you need at least a 3.4 2L, 3L and cumulative GPA to not get dinged from Gibson, but it's not just a 3.4 as reported by your transcript - it's a 3.4 as adjusted by their own internal metrics.

thesealocust wrote:Gibson Dunn is the only firm I know of who carefully scrutinizes 2L and 3L courses. They keep lists of courses with inflated average GPAs from the school they routinely hire from, and will actually adjust your school's GPA downward for easy courses and upward for difficult or especially relevant courses.

Everybody knows you need at least a 3.4 2L, 3L and cumulative GPA to not get dinged from Gibson, but it's not just a 3.4 as reported by your transcript - it's a 3.4 as adjusted by their own internal metrics.

I'd say it comes out a wash. Some people try more hard than last year because of the clerkship race or an inferiority complex (see e.g. transfers) and others chill, check out, or have no idea what is happening (see e.g. LLMs). I imagine the median amount of effort is basically the same as 1L, though the individual representing it may be different.

From what I can tell, the 2L's still try, just not quite as hard as they did as 1L's (or as 2014 suggested, just as hard but it doesn't show because its not as novel), and only the 3L's have really checked out. Maybe its the residual fear of the no-offer persisting through 2L, and once that offer is in hand, people really feel secure.

As a T14 2L with 3L friends in clinic who have jobs, I'll tell you that in MY experience they tend to be just as gung-ho as they were prior to 3L. Of course my 3L friends who don't yet have jobs tend to go "Why do you care? You already have a job!" But that doesn't really seem to register. Although counter-intuitive, in my experience the 3Ls who don't have jobs seem to care less about grades than those with jobs. Almost as if they've given up on grades getting them a job and are just relying on good fortune?

All anecdotal, but all that to say (as someone said early on ITT): gunners will be gunners.

Let me begin by saying that you should be pick classes and not base that decision on the level of competition. Once you start working, you'll be thankful that you took the hard courses that actually gave you practical skills. You won't remember the fact that there was competition or that you got a grade that wasn't perfect.

I find that the level of competition does not ease off 2L and 3L year. People are still intelligent, even if they don't work quite as hard. Also, there is way too much variation if terms of course load. As a 2L, I took hard classes and gunned by doing both LR and moot court, and there were other students who only took seminar classes without a curve. Guess who is going to have the worse GPA and fall in the rankings?

thesealocust wrote:Gibson Dunn is the only firm I know of who carefully scrutinizes 2L and 3L courses. They keep lists of courses with inflated average GPAs from the school they routinely hire from, and will actually adjust your school's GPA downward for easy courses and upward for difficult or especially relevant courses.

Everybody knows you need at least a 3.4 2L, 3L and cumulative GPA to not get dinged from Gibson, but it's not just a 3.4 as reported by your transcript - it's a 3.4 as adjusted by their own internal metrics.

I trust you sealocust, but I'm just making sure you're not being sarcastic. Just have a friend who is legit worried about GDC.

thesealocust wrote:Gibson Dunn is the only firm I know of who carefully scrutinizes 2L and 3L courses. They keep lists of courses with inflated average GPAs from the school they routinely hire from, and will actually adjust your school's GPA downward for easy courses and upward for difficult or especially relevant courses.

Everybody knows you need at least a 3.4 2L, 3L and cumulative GPA to not get dinged from Gibson, but it's not just a 3.4 as reported by your transcript - it's a 3.4 as adjusted by their own internal metrics.

I trust you sealocust, but I'm just making sure you're not being sarcastic. Just have a friend who is legit worried about GDC.

He's trolling. Although I never know why he keeps trolling GDC specifically - I do a double-take every time. :p

Also, for god's sake don't listen to LSATNightmares two posts up. The idea that law school (particularly some gunner doctrinal course) teaches you any practical skill is a ridiculous flame. You should absolutely think about the curve for a course, because while a few judges during clerkship hiring might look to see whether you took evidence, EVERY employer for the next 5+ years will look at your GPA.

Sure, I'll grant that many courses don't teach practical skills. But what I was getting at is that your fluffy law courses will be less useful than other courses, like Bankruptcy, Remedies, Secured Transactions, Antitrust, etc. I'm not saying that you'll be ready to go out and practice. But you'll gain knowledge of important survey areas, and it can be hard to have such a big-picture perspective once you're practicing. Those courses may be harder, but it's worth it. I've had adjunct professors who are actually lawyers teach, and they say that they were so much better off by having taken these courses, because they had some basic understanding of some important, complex areas.

LSATNightmares wrote:Sure, I'll grant that many courses don't teach practical skills. But what I was getting at is that your fluffy law courses will be less useful than other courses, like Bankruptcy, Remedies, Secured Transactions, Antitrust, etc. I'm not saying that you'll be ready to go out and practice. But you'll gain knowledge of important survey areas, and it can be hard to have such a big-picture perspective once you're practicing. Those courses may be harder, but it's worth it. I've had adjunct professors who are actually lawyers teach, and they say that they were so much better off by having taken these courses, because they had some basic understanding of some important, complex areas.

It's conceivable you might pick up a couple useful factoids here and there. For example, I got an A in a "corporate criminality" course taught by a renowned practitioner-prof like you've described, got a standard white collar research assignment at my firm the next summer, and my extensive outline gave me a whole two relevant (general) cases to start me off on the issue my partner assigned. Once you actually start writing briefs and motions, it should become clear to you just how extraordinarily superficial the stuff you learn in law school is.

That said, I gunned harder than you did my second year because I wanted a CoA clerkship. All doctrinal classes, law review ed-board, published an article, did well in moot court, etc etc. So I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying a higher GPA is MUCH more important than the limited substantive knowledge you pick up in gunner-type doctrinals. In a lot of areas of law, the "leading cases" you study in LS will have been replaced by the time you get out in practice anyway.

I think that a whole lot of people honestly don't know how not to gun. but a fair percentage of the gunners will get their clerkship offers before 3L and then completely check out, but way less than you would expect. its alway why hys are completely full of gunners even though they could get jobs from the bottom, just gunners who don't know how not to gun.

From all responses ITT, sounds like tcr for a V20 corpdood with no clerkship ambitions is taking 1-2 harder classes per semester (evidence, secured, income tax, etc.) and fill other 2-3 with fluffier classes/seminars. Not so much a joke that potential firm lateral recruiters will lol but also easiest shot at cum laude.

thesealocust wrote:Gibson Dunn is the only firm I know of who carefully scrutinizes 2L and 3L courses. They keep lists of courses with inflated average GPAs from the school they routinely hire from, and will actually adjust your school's GPA downward for easy courses and upward for difficult or especially relevant courses.

Everybody knows you need at least a 3.4 2L, 3L and cumulative GPA to not get dinged from Gibson, but it's not just a 3.4 as reported by your transcript - it's a 3.4 as adjusted by their own internal metrics.

You've said that Gibson is the only firm that cares in multiple threads, and it is categorically untrue. Everyone looks at 2L and 3L grades, its just not for purposes of absolute dinging.

Everyone has to understand that the junior associate experience is not the same for everyone at a given firm. There are better and worse practice groups to work with. There are better and worse assignments within those practice groups. Some poor schmuck is going to be stuck doing diligence for a month; some other guy is going to be on the core team, helping to turn docs and shit, which sounds miserable but means you're learning how to run docs, building relationships and listening in on calls etc. Guess which assignment is more desirable?

Everyone will get some dog assignments, and most folks will get some cherry gigs. But if you think that everyone gets the same mix, you're wrong. And if you think this allocation is random, or based solely on whose ass you kissed at a summer cocktail party, you are wrong too.

Everything matters. Everything. Grades, schmooze, work ethic, responsiveness to email at 11PM on Friday, not wearing a stupid suit, not being an asshole, everything. What your classmates think of you at law school matters; what your fellow associates think of you matters.

That's why these grade drop threads are so stupid. Are you going to get fired over grades? No. Are you doomed to professional annihilation? Of course not. If you show up at work and started kicking ass, no one will really care that you got a B- in Fed Courts as a 3L. But what are the odds of that? FYI - that same gunner who is getting the A in Fed Courts is going to be in your associate class, and gunning even harder once they're getting paid for it. And if not him, its the gunner from some school down the food chain who needs to prove themselves once they get to the firm. The "I'll turn it on when I get to work" attitude is the same bullshit that gets people screwed when they go to crappy law schools - "I never really tried in undergrad, so once I get to LS I'll turn it on and be at the top of the class, no prob!" We all know how that goes.

To restate, in the simplest terms possible: Your grades count for your job. If you wouldn't go to a firm event with an big purple stain on your shirt, then you shouldn't get a gentleman's B in Corporations.

So, do your damn work. You don't need to be spending evenings sobbing into your casebooks because of the stress, but do your work and get the best grades you reasonably can. It's not like the marginal effort to get an A- versus a B+ is going to keep you from missing more than a couple of nights out in a given semester. The horror. Because we all didn't already drink ourselves stupid a thousand times before 2L year.

If I'm being snippy, it's because I've said this in other threads and been dismissed as a troll, and I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THAT THIS IS NOT TROLL, DESPITE HOW MANY FOLKS WISH IT TO BE.

Anonymous User wrote:To restate, in the simplest terms possible: Your grades count for your job. If you wouldn't go to a firm event with an big purple stain on your shirt, then you shouldn't get a gentleman's B in Corporations.

Anonymous User wrote:If I'm being snippy, it's because I've said this in other threads and been dismissed as a troll, and I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THAT THIS IS NOT TROLL, DESPITE HOW MANY FOLKS WISH IT TO BE.

I can't be sure, but I imagine people meant to point out to you that the guy ragging on Gibson Dunn is a troll, not to call you a troll.